Best case scenario for European colonies in Africa post-WW2

[WheelyWheelyLegsNoFeely]

Note that I'm using "best case" very relatively here; I don't believe that the "best case scenario" for European colonization would translate into the best case scenario for Africa, and if anything would probably lead to worse results in the continent.

That being said, considering some parts of Africa remained colonized into the 1970s, I was curious about how long the European powers could maintain direct control over their African colonies, and particularly which countries would be best able to remain in European hands for the longest amount of time.

 

[Veiovis]

The one (and only) relevant variable is domestic will to hold a colony, both in the sense of "we actually want to" and " we are willing to pay the price". Absent armed intervention by the outside, even weak colonial powers could hold land indefinetly if their population was for some reason truly devoted to it. So you will want to search for things to create such domestic will (Good luck, though. I can't think of anything plausible for any proper colonial territory you don't need to zoom into a map to see).

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

1) Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principle:
- Small population
- No active militant resistance otl
- Islands that are isolated

I think if they tried, they could hold onto Cabinda as well. It's a small enclave with vast oil wealth. Although continued war with Angola might make it non viable

2) France could hold onto several island chains in the Indian Ocean for the same reason that Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principe.

As for the mainland colonies, France's best shot would be trying to hold onto Djibouti, which took 3 referendums before it finally decided to go independent. That being said the 76 referendum was almost entirely pro independence, so keeping the loyalty of the population is probably impossible.

3) Spain technically has a few North African enclaves that it has integrated, while also it kept the Canary Islands.

As for it's other colonies, Equatorial Guinea has a small population and a crap ton of oil. With proper immigration policy, we could actually see a Spanish majority in said colony. As for Western Sahara, you could easily keep control over the locals, but Morocco is always going to be a issue.

4) Belgium has no chance at holding onto the Congo in any way, shape, or form.

5) Im assuming we aren't including Italian or German colonies in this discussion.

6) Great Britain is a interesting option because of what you can do with the Commonwealth. But in terms of direct rule instead of the autonomy route, they are limited to only a couple options.

- Seychelles
- Gambia

 

[NK_Tesla]

I feel a large issue with OTL decolonization in Africa occured because it was so fast. A slower, measured withdrawal over a generation or two so as to educate and train up locals to create a unified national and cultural identity would be the best result for both locals and the colonial powers.

 

[Crazymachines]

I feel a large issue with OTL decolonization in Africa occured because it was so fast. A slower, measured withdrawal over a generation or two so as to educate and train up locals to create a unified national and cultural identity would be the best result for both locals and the colonial powers.

A slower decolonization would only have led to the European powers futher cannibalizing the continent of its resources and wealth

 

[JohnBull]

I feel a large issue with OTL decolonization in Africa occured because it was so fast. A slower, measured withdrawal over a generation or two so as to educate and train up locals to create a unified national and cultural identity would be the best result for both locals and the colonial powers.

In this case they might never get independent. After the late 1970's, colonies felt it was no longer in their interest to cut ties with their metropole.

About @GuildedAgeNostalgia list, I believe France could hold Gabon. Britain could hold Lesotho and Swaziland as protectorates.

 

[Bad@logic]

In this case they might never get independent. After the late 1970's, colonies felt it was no longer in their interest to cut ties with their metropole.

About @GuildedAgeNostalgia list, I believe France could hold Gabon. Britain could hold Lesotho and Swaziland as protectorates.

By that time the only colonies left were small islands, enclaves, and city-states, which were either not viable on their own or were subsidized and supported by the metropole to a degree that would be completely unsustainable on the mainland. Taking the French example, and using Mayotte as an example, with the huge transfer payments that are necessary for the French to legitimate their continued presence their and its development and integration into France, and applying that to the mainland, and you get costs which reach hundreds of billions of euros at least per year, which are completely unsustainable. The French empire collapsed in sub-Saharan Africa because the costs of it were dramatically spiraling out of control as the ideal of assimilation was leading to local officials demanding wages that matched Metropolitan equivalents, and the devolution of financial and economic decision making to the regional level of what ultimately became the independent states was due to the need to knee-cap this evolution.

French Gabon also has the problems of Mayotte but on a dramatically increased scale, in that it is a huge ingress point for refugees, and unlike Mayotte it isn't an island so it is even easier for huge numbers of people to move there. Oil production won't cover this permanently. There are already severe problems with Spanish North African enclaves being prime entry points for immigrants, and this would be exponentially larger in Gabon and quickly overload social services and break the colony's economic viability. The only solution would be some form of apartheid between citizens and the immigrants and this would not be politically sustainable in the long run for France. Which is again, the catch 22 for African colonies to want to stay with Europe: they will want benefits from it, but these benefits will quickly escalate and increase in cost to the extent that the metropole will be unable to afford them.

 

[Beatriz]

Would an european Empire in Exile fit this definition?

 

[Fletch]

A Commonwealth Free Trade Area with no tariffs and freedom of movement throughout, with the currencies being pegged to Sterling in an EU type confederation would probably be the best option for the colonies. It would help bolster trade and investment throughout the Commonwealth while at the same time allowing for a level of interdependence to build limiting the rise of dictatorships.

You'd need a PoD before the Great War for this though to be fair.

 

[NK_Tesla]

In this case they might never get independent. After the late 1970's, colonies felt it was no longer in their interest to cut ties with their metropole.

Considering how globalization is progressing I'm not sure this qualifies as a bad thing.

Also 'independent' is a fuzzy term. Is Canada independent of Britain even though they share a monarch? Does independence matter?

 

[ahmedali]

European colonies that can be preserved

Are all the colonies of Spain (Spanish Morocco, Avni, the Sahara, Equatorial Guinea, the first only hates the Spaniards, but they hate Rabat, the second and the third are a little populated and the third has oil)

And all the colonies of Portugal

(The Portuguese were successful in suppressing the separatists. Only the revolution in Portugal itself allowed the colonies to become independent and to cut off Cuban and Soviet support altogether would help end the war earlier.)

If Italy did not enter the war, only Eritrea could preserve it (the Eritreans hated the Abyssinians and preferred Italy)

Somalis (and Libyans in particular) will want to disengage from Italy


France can keep Comoros, Madagascar and Gabon

United Kingdom Seychelles and Mauritius (if Malta is successfully incorporated into the United Kingdom)

 

[ahmedali]

1) Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principle:
- Small population
- No active militant resistance otl
- Islands that are isolated

I think if they tried, they could hold onto Cabinda as well. It's a small enclave with vast oil wealth. Although continued war with Angola might make it non viable

2) France could hold onto several island chains in the Indian Ocean for the same reason that Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principe.

As for the mainland colonies, France's best shot would be trying to hold onto Djibouti, which took 3 referendums before it finally decided to go independent. That being said the 76 referendum was almost entirely pro independence, so keeping the loyalty of the population is probably impossible.

3) Spain technically has a few North African enclaves that it has integrated, while also it kept the Canary Islands.

As for it's other colonies, Equatorial Guinea has a small population and a crap ton of oil. With proper immigration policy, we could actually see a Spanish majority in said colony. As for Western Sahara, you could easily keep control over the locals, but Morocco is always going to be a issue.

4) Belgium has no chance at holding onto the Congo in any way, shape, or form.

5) Im assuming we aren't including Italian or German colonies in this discussion.

6) Great Britain is a interesting option because of what you can do with the Commonwealth. But in terms of direct rule instead of the autonomy route, they are limited to only a couple options.

- Seychelles
- Gambia

Also Mauritius, Sierra Leone and the Sinai Peninsula

(If the Suez crisis goes in their favour, or if the independence agreement of the Kingdom of Egypt is changed to give the Egyptians the entire Sudan and to give up the Sinai Peninsula)

and British Somalia

(They did not want to unite with Italian Somalia and it seems that they are hostile to other Somalis)

 

[TheKutKu]

1) Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principle:
- Small population
- No active militant resistance otl
- Islands that are isolated

I think if they tried, they could hold onto Cabinda as well. It's a small enclave with vast oil wealth. Although continued war with Angola might make it non viable

2) France could hold onto several island chains in the Indian Ocean for the same reason that Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principe.

As for the mainland colonies, France's best shot would be trying to hold onto Djibouti, which took 3 referendums before it finally decided to go independent. That being said the 76 referendum was almost entirely pro independence, so keeping the loyalty of the population is probably impossible.

3) Spain technically has a few North African enclaves that it has integrated, while also it kept the Canary Islands.

As for it's other colonies, Equatorial Guinea has a small population and a crap ton of oil. With proper immigration policy, we could actually see a Spanish majority in said colony. As for Western Sahara, you could easily keep control over the locals, but Morocco is always going to be a issue.

4) Belgium has no chance at holding onto the Congo in any way, shape, or form.

5) Im assuming we aren't including Italian or German colonies in this discussion.

6) Great Britain is a interesting option because of what you can do with the Commonwealth. But in terms of direct rule instead of the autonomy route, they are limited to only a couple options.

- Seychelles
- Gambia

Portugal actually can’t hold onto Cape Verde with a post 1950 POD without it becoming a major headaches over the long time unless they spend a truly Ridiculous amount of subsidies on it and/or flood it with tourists.
It’s easier for them to keep East Timor to the year 2000 than Cape Verde, the population was just much more politised in the later.

 

[ahmedali]

Portugal actually can’t hold onto Cape Verde with a post 1950 POD without it becoming a major headaches over the long time unless they spend a truly Ridiculous amount of subsidies on it and/or flood it with tourists.
It’s easier for them to keep East Timor to the year 2000 than Cape Verde, the population was just much more politised in the later.

not really

You meant Amílcar Cabral, he is more Guinean-Bissau than Cabo Verdean

 

[thenextgui]

1) Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principle:
- Small population
- No active militant resistance otl
- Islands that are isolated

I think if they tried, they could hold onto Cabinda as well. It's a small enclave with vast oil wealth. Although continued war with Angola might make it non viable

2) France could hold onto several island chains in the Indian Ocean for the same reason that Portugal could hold onto Cape Verde and Sao Tome & Principe.

As for the mainland colonies, France's best shot would be trying to hold onto Djibouti, which took 3 referendums before it finally decided to go independent. That being said the 76 referendum was almost entirely pro independence, so keeping the loyalty of the population is probably impossible.

3) Spain technically has a few North African enclaves that it has integrated, while also it kept the Canary Islands.

As for it's other colonies, Equatorial Guinea has a small population and a crap ton of oil. With proper immigration policy, we could actually see a Spanish majority in said colony. As for Western Sahara, you could easily keep control over the locals, but Morocco is always going to be a issue.

4) Belgium has no chance at holding onto the Congo in any way, shape, or form.

5) Im assuming we aren't including Italian or German colonies in this discussion.

6) Great Britain is a interesting option because of what you can do with the Commonwealth. But in terms of direct rule instead of the autonomy route, they are limited to only a couple options.

- Seychelles
- Gambia

Cape Verde had militant resistance

 

[Warthog]

After the late 1970's, colonies felt it was no longer in their interest to cut ties with their metropole.

Like which ones? By 1977 all of Africa was independent except Namibia and western Sahara.

The Portuguese were successful in suppressing the separatists. Only the revolution in Portugal itself allowed the colonies to become independent and to cut off Cuban and Soviet support altogether would help end the war earlier

Er what? A major cause of the Carnation Revolution was fatigue with the wars in Africa, and by that time over half of Guine, large parts of Mozambique and Angola were free from Portuguese control.

Cuban and Soviet assistance was largely to Angola, and mostly after independence.

___

Overall, what this thread is missing out, is the desire for self determination among Africans. Ranging from the more intellectual, values based nationalism in African countries through the 50s and 60s, inspired by the example of India, Indonesia etc, but not very different from the nationalism of Czechoslovakia or Serbia forty years previously... ...to the more pragmatic peasant and business nationalists who just wanted to set their own taxes etc.

 

[ahmedali]

Like which ones? By 1977 all of Africa was independent except Namibia and western Sahara.


Er what? A major cause of the Carnation Revolution was fatigue with the wars in Africa, and by that time over half of Guine, large parts of Mozambique and Angola were free from Portuguese control.

Cuban and Soviet assistance was largely to Angola, and mostly after independence

Only Guinea-Bissau was a failure for the Portuguese

The Angolan and Mozambican independence movements became deeply divided, and even Cuban support was not that strong

So Portugal can keep it

 

[JohnBull]

Like which ones? By 1977 all of Africa was independent except Namibia and western Sahara.

Several islands on Caribbean, for instance. Two of them quite big: Martinique and Guadeloupe. In Africa, Mayotte and Réunion.

 

[TheKutKu]

Only Guinea-Bissau was a failure for the Portuguese

The Angolan and Mozambican independence movements became deeply divided, and even Cuban support was not that strong

So Portugal can keep it

Portugal was not able to contain FRELIMO after their shift to the Tete front following Gordian Knot, and while by 1974 they lacked the solid territorial base they once had in Cabo Delgado, they were quickly extending their operations in central and southern mozambique, Portugal was absolutely not winning.

As for Cape Verde, there is more to keeping a colony than just leading a succesful counter-subversion and counter-terrorist movement, especially if they want to enter the EU and the Schengen area, and particularly given the wide presence of the Cape Verdean diaspora through western europe, I think portugal *could* buy off and develop enough Cape Verde that they eventually decide to stay in some association, but in the sea of possibilities of alternate history it's not the most likely option post-ww2

 

[Warthog]

Only the revolution in Portugal itself allowed the colonies to become independent and to cut off Cuban and Soviet support altogether would help end the war earlier.

The Angolan and Mozambican independence movements became deeply divided, and even Cuban support was not that strong

Which of these do you mean?

In reality, Cuban intervention in Angola took place after the Carnation Revolution, and their involvement in Mozambique was limited.

As to divisions in the liberation movements, that's the Angolans only. Mozambique had Frelimo, and some minnows, not really divided at all

So Portugal can keep it

Keep what? How?

Several islands on Caribbean, for instance. Two of them quite big: Martinique and Guadeloupe. In Africa, Mayotte and Réunion.

Sure. But in general, almost all Africa was independent by the late 70s , which was my original criticism